Statements against new.net?

Wed Mar 14 07:56:56 UTC 2001

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Scott Francis wrote:
> > Perhaps next you might wish to stamp your feet and threaten to hold your
> > breath until they go away?
> 
> let's not forget what mailing list this is - the operators in this forum can
> have a very real and significant impact on the direction "the market" takes.
> If, as a group, the NANOG readership decides to take a single position on
> anything (ha!), then we could very likely effectively determine in which
> direction "the market" will go. After all, if _nobody's_ customers can access
> new.net's non-sanctioned gTLDs, they can't very well go to another provider
> for such access, and new.net will die the quick death that it deserves.
> 
> (yes, I'm obviously idealistic and naive to think that even a significant
> majority of NANOG readers could even agree on which way is up, but I think
> enough people agree on this issue that we don't necessarily have to sit back
> and let "the market" make decisions that will have real operational impact
> for the foreseeable future. We can make those decisions ourselves.)
> 
Actually, I'm enamoured of someone's idea to just blackhole new.net and
let them figure out how to sort that.  Saves me a whole lot of trouble, I
just get to ask the customer where they got the idea that .xxx was a valid
tld.  

If we all do that (And yes I can see a significant [10%+] fraction of this
group's readership doing it), then the problem goes away soon.  An elegant
fix, except that new.net would probably sue anyone who blackholed them...

--Matthew Devney